1. Field of Invention
The invention relates generally to the fields of video and/or data transmission. In one exemplary aspect, the invention relates to the use of a network architecture for providing content in content-based (e.g., cable) networks using a packetized protocol.
2. Description of Related Technology
The provision of content to a plurality of subscribers in a content-based network is well known in the prior art. In a typical configuration, the content is distributed to the subscribers devices over any number of different topologies including for example: (i) Hybrid Fiber Coaxial (HFC) network, which may include e.g., dense wave division multiplexed (DWDM) optical portions, coaxial cable portions, and other types of bearer media; (ii) satellite network (e.g., from an orbital entity to a user's STB via a satellite dish); (iii) optical fiber distribution networks such as e.g., “Fiber to the X” or FTTx (which may include for example FTTH, FTTC, FTTN, and FTTB variants thereof); (iv) Hybrid Fiber/copper or “HFCu” networks (e.g., a fiber-optic distribution network, with node or last-mile delivery being over installed POTS/PSTN phone wiring or CAT-5 cabling); (v) microwave/millimeter wave systems; etc.
Various types of content delivery services are utilized in providing content to subscribers. For example, certain content may be provided according to a broadcast schedule (aka “linear” content). Content may also be provided on-demand (such as via video on-demand or VOD, free video on-demand, near video on-demand, etc.). Content may also be provided to users from a recording device located at a user premises (such as via a DVR) or elsewhere (such as via a personal video recorder or network personal video recorder disposed at a network location) or via a “startover” paradigm, which also affords the user increased control over the playback of the content (“non-linear”).
Just as different varieties of content delivery services have evolved over time, several different network architectures have also evolved for deploying these services. These architectures range from fully centralized (e.g., using one or more centralized servers to provide content to all consumers) to fully distributed (e.g., multiple copies of content distributed on servers very close to the customer premises, at the “edge” of the distribution network), as well as various other configurations. Some distribution architectures (e.g., HFC cable, HFCu, etc.) consist of optical fiber towards the “core” of the network, which is in data communication with a different medium (coaxial cable radio frequency, copper POTS/PSTN wiring) distribution networks towards the edge.
Satellite networks similarly use a radio frequency physical layer (i.e., satellite transceiver and associated settop box and satellite dish located at each of the consumer's premises) to transmit digital television and data signals.
HFCu networks utilize existing copper (e.g., POTS/PSTN or CAT-5) cabling within the premises for the “last mile”; however, one salient downside to this approach is severe bandwidth constraints (e.g., on the order of 25-30 mbps). At 25 mbps, roughly 6 mbps is allocated for Internet access, leaving the remaining 19 mbps for HD/SD video and voice (e.g., VoIP). VoIP bandwidth is effectively trivial for both upstream and downstream bandwidth, but video (especially HD quality) consumes great amounts of bandwidth. Hence, the user of an HFCu system rapidly becomes bandwidth-limited for next-generation/commonly required technologies such as HD video provided with high-speed broadband data service.
An emerging technology for broadband MAN (Metropolitan area network) content delivery is so-called “WiMAX” technology, specified in inter alia IEEE-Std. 802.16e. WiMAX offers the promise of high data rate, wireless access and content delivery to network subscribers at literally any location, fixed or mobile. This technology ostensibly provides MSOs and other service providers a flexible and high-bandwidth means of delivering content to their subscribers, and is especially well suited to both fixed and mobility applications due to its comparatively long range (much greater than WLAN technologies such as Wi-Fi), and wireless (air) interface.
While the details of how video is transported in the network can be different for each architecture, many architectures will have a transition point where the video signals are modulated, upconverted to the appropriate RF channel and sent over the coaxial segment(s), copper wiring, (or air interface) of the network. For example, content (e.g., audio, video, etc.) is provided via a plurality of downstream (“in-band”) RF QAM channels over a cable or satellite network. Depending on the topology of the individual plant, the modulation and upconversion may be performed at a node, hub or a headend. In many optical networks, nodes receive optical signals which are then converted to the electrical domain via an optical networking unit (ONU) for compatibility with the end-user's telephony, networking, and other “electrical” systems.
In U.S. cable systems for example, downstream RF channels used for transmission of television programs are 6 MHz wide, and occupy a 6 MHz spectral slot between 54 MHz and 860 MHz. Within a given cable plant, all homes that are electrically connected to the same cable feed running through a neighborhood will receive the same downstream signal. For the purpose of managing services, these homes are aggregated into logical groups typically called service groups. Homes belonging to the same service group receive their services on the same set of in-band RF channels.
Cable and satellite signals are transmitted using a QAM scheme and often use MPEG (e.g., MPEG-2) audio/video compression. Hence, available payload bitrate for typical modulation rates (QAM-256) used on HFC systems is roughly 38 Mbps. A typical rate of 3.75 Mbps is used to send one video program at resolution and quality equivalent to NTSC broadcast signals (so-called “Standard Definition (SD)” television resolution). Use of MPEG-2 and QAM modulation enables carriage of 10 SD sessions on one RF channel (10×3.75=37.5 Mbps<38 Mbps). Since a typical service group consists of 4 RF channels, 40 simultaneous SD sessions can be accommodated within a service group. These numbers work out very well for many deployment scenarios, such as the following example. A typical “service area” neighborhood served by a coaxial cable drop from the cable network consists of 2000 homes, of which about two-thirds are cable subscribers, of which about one-third are digital cable subscribers, of which about 10% peak simultaneous use is expected. Hence, the bandwidth required to meet service requirements is 2000×(⅔)×(⅓)×0.1=approximately 40 peak sessions−the exact number supported by a 4 QAM service group. Since high-definition (HD) sessions require a greater bandwidth (typically 15 Mbps), less of these sessions can be accommodated.
Broadband data carriage in such networks is often accomplished using other (typically dedicated) QAM channels. For instance, the well known DOCSIS specifications provide for high-speed data transport over such RF channels in parallel with the video content transmission on other QAMs carried on the same RF medium (i.e., coaxial cable). A cable modem is used to interface with a network counterpart (CMTS) so as to permit two-way broadband data service between the network and users within a given service group.
Out-of-band (OOB) channels (and associated protocols) may be used to deliver metadata files to a subscriber device, as well as to provide communication between the headend of the content-based network and the subscriber devices.
Other systems and methods may also be used for delivering media content to a plurality of subscribers. For example, so-called “Internet Protocol Television” or “IPTV” is a system through which services are delivered to subscribers using the architecture and networking methods of an Internet Protocol Suite over a packet-switched network infrastructure (such as e.g., the Internet and broadband Internet access networks), instead of being delivered through traditional radio frequency broadcast, satellite signal, or cable television (CATV) formats. These services may include, for example, Live TV, Video On-Demand (VOD), and Interactive TV (iTV). IPTV delivers services (including video, audio, text, graphics, data, and control signals) across an access agnostic, packet switched network that employs the IP protocol. IPTV is managed in a way so as to provide the required level of quality of service (QoS), quality of experience (QoE), security, interactivity, and reliability via intelligent terminals such as PCs, STBs, handhelds, TV, and other terminals. IPTV service is usually delivered over a complex and heavy “walled garden” network, which is carefully engineered to ensure sufficient bandwidth for delivery of vast amounts of multicast video traffic.
IPTV uses standard networking protocols for the delivery of content. This is accomplished by using consumer devices having broadband Internet connections for video streaming. Home networks based on standards such as “next generation” home network technology can be used to deliver IPTV content to subscriber devices in a home.
So-called “Internet TV”, on the other hand, generally refers to transport streams sent over IP networks (normally the Internet) from outside the network (e.g., cable, HFCu, satellite, etc.) that connects to the user's premises. An Internet TV provider has no control over the final delivery, and so broadcasts on a “best effort” basis, notably without QoS requirements.
There is also a growing effort to standardize the use of the 3GPP IP Multimedia System (IMS) as an architecture for supporting IPTV services in carriers networks, in order to provide both voice and IPTV services over the same core infrastructure. IMS-based IPTV may be adapted to be compliant with the IPTV solutions specifications issued by many IPTV standards development organizations (SDOs), such as, e.g., Open IPTV Forum, ETSI-TISPAN, ITU-T, etc.
While delivery of packetized content is well known in the prior art, content delivery has to this point not been able to provide delivery of packetized (e.g., IP) media content to a subscriber devices over a content delivery network (e.g., cable television HFC, HFCu, satellite, etc.), other than over the Internet as afforded by virtue of a satellite, cable, or other such modem (i.e., “Internet TV”).
Moreover, extant Internet TV and IPTV solutions (regardless of bearer medium) lack several fundamental capabilities now being demanded by users, including: (i) a high degree of personalization (i.e., adaptation to the preferences and attributes of a specific user or group of users); (ii) transportability of a given content session across different devices/locations; (iii) subscriber access to content regardless of location; and (iv) access to a broad variety of content of different types (e.g., from “managed” networks with professional content such as movies, television shows, sporting events, etc., from unmanaged networks such as the Internet/World Wide Web, and from non-professional users such as the subscriber(s) themselves). Users also want to be in control of the timing of delivery (e.g., when it starts, when it can be paused and restarted, etc.). In simple terms, next-generation users want any content they desire, delivered at any time and at any location, and on any device they choose (so-called “four-any” capability). For instance, such a user might want to be able to access a YouTube™ video on their home television set, or their favorite television program on their laptop or mobile smartphone while on the road, or even an HBO™ or Showtime™ movie offered by their service provider at a friend's house (who is not a subscriber of the same service provider), and even seamlessly transport a given content delivery session between locations and/or platforms (e.g., from the PC in the study to the TV in the living room). Such capabilities simply do not exist under the prior art, even under currently envisaged IPTV or IMS-based solutions.
Additionally, next generation subscribers also desire to integrate other functions common in their everyday lives with their access to content. For example, functions or applications such as chat, text/SMS, Twitter™, and Facebook™, as well as voice communications (e.g., cellular, PTT, and VoIP) are now ubiquitous, and in very common use on a daily basis. A given user may wish to talk to a friend on voice, chat/text, or “tweet” while also watching a movie of their favorite show, while also accessing Internet content. Current state-of-the-art requires the user to employ multiple distinct devices for these functions (e.g., a cell phone, DSTB/television, and laptop or PC).
Moreover, there is no real overlap between the “state” of one service and another; delivery of the user's television show or movie is not integrated with their telephony or other systems under the prior art approaches (e.g., the movie does not pause when they receive a phone call or a text message), thereby causing the user to at minimum be distracted, or at worst lose part of the desired content (especially if linear in nature).
Other functions associated with everyday life are also very desirable to integrate into a readily accessible, common medium or portal, such as for example an address book or telephone directory function. Instant and unified access to photos from loved ones or friends, home videos, and other such personalized content, is also highly desirable to next generation users, and not provided by current technology.
Further, the lack of an even marginally effective IPTV solution for cable, HFCu, satellite, wireless, or optical networks (i.e., one that provides even a fraction of the foregoing capabilities desired by next generation users) significantly frustrates attracting new subscribers (and keeping existing ones), since the implementation of new business models and services addressing these needs are extremely slow and severely hampered by the limitations of the underlying content/service delivery infrastructure. Such limitations on “service velocity” (i.e., the speed and ease with which new solutions and applications can be implemented and provided to prospective or existing subscribers), especially in light of the recent migration of traditional “television-watchers” to alternate forums such as Internet-based content delivery or P2P services (e.g., Hulu), exacerbate the difficulty for cable, satellite, HFCu, or other service providers to attract and keep their subscribers. Stated simply, why should one pay a service provider for content or services they can obtain for free on, e.g., the Internet, or via a low-cost movie mail-service (e.g., Netflix)?
What current and next-generation users would pay for, however, is service differentiation; i.e., what they could not get on the Internet or via a mail service. Factors that weigh into this “service differentiation” include (i) the aforementioned level of service integration and transportability (i.e., ability to provide the “four-any's”, and do so in a simplified and easy-to-use service environment), (ii) the quality of delivered service (mobility and transportability are of little use when the picture/audio quality are not acceptable), (iii) the reliability and support associated with the service, (iv) the (user) cost associated with providing and maintaining the service(s); (v) the degree of personalization which can be afforded in providing the services; (vi) security considerations (i.e., are my content, personal information and privacy aspects (viewing habits, etc.) safe?); and (vii) how rapidly and seamlessly changes (e.g., service additions, subtractions, modifications) to their service package can be implemented.
As a result of the intense competition for broadband access and other services, some voice and data service providers have recently begun deploying or planning to deploy IPTV services as part of a “bundled” service offering. This is seen as a necessary evolution to retain customers, grow market share and increase the profitability of broadband services. Such bundling is to be distinguished, however, from a true integration or convergence of services as previously described. Bundling merely affords a subscriber some economy of cost and implementation by using a common service provider for what are still fundamentally disparate and heterogeneous services.
Such prior art bundled approaches are also highly vendor and implementation-specific. These vendor-specific implementations can be described as “silo” or “stovepipe” approaches, in that they are highly vertical and generally not amenable to integration or interoperability with other types of services (at least not at any fundamental level).
It also is important to note that simple bundles of services—e.g., providing voice, video and data services in a unified package with a single bill—are typically offered at a lower price than the equivalent services offered separately, resulting in a decrease in Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) to the service provider in the long term. Hence, what are needed are also ways for a service provider to increase the value of its services to generate increased ARPU, and to decrease customer “churn” (turnover) that also reduces service profitability.
Based on the foregoing, improved apparatus and methods are needed to provide content delivery and other services such as voice, SMS/text, broadband access, etc. to consumer devices according to a highly unified and converged service model. Such apparatus methods would ideally provide television content that is highly personalized and flexible as to delivery mode, location, and device, as well as interactive and converged user applications which are useful across several devices (and easily integrated with other services). These improved apparatus and methods would also facilitate a high level of “service velocity” (thereby mitigating or eliminating customer frustration at not getting “what they want, when they want it”), as well as provide significant differentiation over extant service and delivery models by, inter alia, being able to rapidly generate and implement new applications without large investments in capital or man-hours.